The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, is a global action plan to end poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. When it was adopted in September 2015, the international community recognised that the development of education around the world would be key to the success of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Education is an indispensable tool for realising the aspirations contained in the 2030 Agenda not only because it is a goal in itself (SDG 4: Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning) but also because it contributes to other SDGs. Developing strategies to promote inclusive education thus becomes one of the challenges of pedagogical innovation today.  In this research we ask whether cooperative learning is a valid pedagogical approach for the development of attitudes and skills aligned with inclusion.

The Research Group on Attention to Diversity (UVic-UCC) investigates the impact of cooperative learning on the processes of cohesion, equity, and inclusion. The group has developed the Cooperate to Learn, Learn to Cooperate (CLLC) programme to implement cooperative learning in schools (Pujolàs, 2008; Pujolàs et al. 2013; Riera, 2010; Soldevila, 2015; Riera et al. 2022). Its formulation was influenced by the contributions of Johnson and Johnson (2016) on the instructional use of cooperative teams, the cooperative instructional strategies proposed by Kagan and Kagan (2009) and the teaching methods devised by Slavin (2012, 2015). Based on these, Pujolàs describes cooperative learning as the didactic use of small heterogeneous teams of students within a classroom, through activities structured in such a way as to ensure the equal participation of all team members and simultaneous interactions between them, in order to learn -each to the extent of their possibilities- the curricular content and to learn as a team (Pujolàs, 2008). A similar line of integration of the different components of cooperative learning has been proposed by Jacobs and Renaldya (2019).

The Programme proposes three areas of intervention:

Area A. Actions linked to the cohesion of the class group in general and of the teams in particular.

Area B. Actions characterised by using teams as a resource for pupils to learn by cooperating.

Area C. Actions aimed at helping pupils learn to cooperate in teams.

This paper focuses only on Area A.  Five dimensions are identified:

D1. Consensus in joint decision-making (Gilles, 2006; Le, Janssen and Wubbels, 2018).

D2. Mutual knowledge and positive friendship between students (Buljubašić Kuzmanović, 2009; Dzemic and Kristiansen 2019).

D3. Inclusion of students who face more barriers to participation and learning (Pujolàs, et al., 2013; Torrego and Monge, 2019; Muntaner and Forteza, 2021). 

D4. Awareness of teamwork (Angus and Hughes, 2017; Martinelli and Raykov, 2021). 

D5. Promotion of the values underpinning cooperation (Coll et al., 1999; Lafont et al, 2017).

The resources for developing these are the dynamics of cohesion that make it possible to promote a vision of teamwork as an opportunity for the cognitive, social, and affective development of all students. These aims are in line with Slavin's (1995) model where cohesion feeds back into the team's objectives and with Ashman and Gillies' (2013) proposal on the need to teach social skills to students so that they can take advantage of cooperative learning situations.

To answer our research question, we set out 3 objectives:

1. To find out how schools evaluate the impact of cooperative learning on group cohesion.

2. To identify how members of the educational community define group cohesion.

3. To analyse teachers' perceptions of the development of cohesion dynamics and their impact on cohesion.

This study opts for a methodological approach of a qualitative nature situated in the interpretive paradigm (Erickson, 1982). This paradigm encompasses a set of approaches to observational research that focuses on the construction of meanings and the social life of human beings, recognising the need for a detailed understanding of the specific practices under investigation. For the research presented here, we have selected through a convenience sampling, 6 schools out of a sample of 55. The selected schools teach pre-school, primary and/or secondary education in different regions of Spain (Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Galicia, and Basque Country). All of them have gone through the three-year training process offered by the Programme and have consolidated it in their schools. The 6 schools are part of the Kelidon Cooperative Learning Network. In accordance with the research objectives, four data collection instruments were used: 1. Semi-structured interview with the school's Cooperative Learning Committee. 1 committee per school (composed of 4-5 teachers of different grades). 2. Focus group of teachers. A group of 4-5 teachers from different educational stages who apply CL in their classes per school. 3. Focus group of pupils with at least 2 years of experience in CL. 3-4 focus groups per school consisting of 4-5 pupils from different grades are recorded. 4. Semi-structured interviews with 5 families of different class groups per school. Each school, through the management team, proposes the participants according to the objectives of the research. They were asked to be as heterogeneous and representative of the school's diversity as possible. Informed consent is obtained from all participants. Data are audio-recorded, and data are collected during interviews and focus groups for later transcription and analysis. In accordance with the purposes of the study, a thematic analysis of the transcribed data is conducted. Categories are identified based on the relative meaning of each transcribed text fragment (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Willig, 2013). Coding is collaborative between researchers on 100% of the data, with doubtful cases resolved by agreement based on the reliability of the analysis (Yin, 2009). Final protocols are consulted whenever necessary to guide the data analysis work. The triangulation of techniques and informants, increases the validity and quality of the analyses.

Concerning Objective 1 To find out how schools evaluate the impact of cooperative learning on group cohesion, the results indicate that it is high or very high in all five dimensions. The lowest score corresponds to D3: Inclusion of pupils who encounter more barriers to participation and learning. Concerning Objective 2 To identify how members of the educational community define group cohesion, the analyses aim to identify the indicators that members of the educational community use to define cohesion. The results can be related to each dimension: D1 - Interpersonal communication for decision-making - Valuing and respecting the contributions of others - Understanding that knowledge is enriched by the input of others - Perception that organising as a team is important for success D2 - Development of empathy - Improvement of coexistence - Development of self-concept, self-esteem and feeling of self-efficacy and competence D3 - Acceptance of individual differences - Preparing pupils to work together D4 - Positive expectations towards learning - Increasing intrinsic motivation D5 - Team awareness - Development of self judgement based on others - Positive appraisal of help - Conflict resolution and emotional regulation - Listening skills Concerning Objective 3 To analyse teachers' perceptions of the development of cohesive dynamics and their impact on cohesion The results indicate that: - They require sharing goals with students - They help teachers to get to know pupils. - Improve mutual relationships - They require coordination of teachers in their planning. - They lead to reflection on teaching performance before, during and after implementation. The results show that CL is an effective pedagogical approach to promote cohesion, inclusion and equity in schools. Informants point to key elements of the programme, as well as some challenges. The research reinforces the need for evidence of inclusion-focused programmes that contribute to the development of inclusive and quality education. Rethinking educational innovation in this direction is essential to contribute to the SDGs.

Angus, R.L., & Hughes, T. (2017). School Climate, Connectedness and Academic Achievement: Examining Positive Impacts from High School Mentoring Services. Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 4, 69-84 Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (2013). Collaborative learning for diverse learners. In C. E. HmeloSilver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. Donnell (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 297–313). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group Buljubašić Kuzmanović, V. (2009). “Kooperativno Učenje kao Indikator Kvalitete Odgoja i Obrazovanja [Cooperative Learning as an Indicator of Educational Quality].” Life and School: Journal for the Theory and Practice of Education 55 (21). 50–57. Dzemidzic Kristiansen, S., Burner, S., & Johnsen, B. H. (2019). Face-to-face Promotive Interaction Leading to Successful Cooperative Learning: A Review Study. Cogent Education, 6(1) Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271–287. Jacobs, G. M., & Renaldya, W. A. (2019). Student centered cooperative learning: Linking concepts in education to promote student learning. Springer Nature. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2016). Cooperative learning and teaching citizenship in democracies. International Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 162–177. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. Kagan Publishing Lafont, L., Rivière, C., Darnis, F., & Legrain, P. (2017). How to structure group work? Conditions of efficacy and methodological considerations in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 327–338. Le, H., Janssen, J. & Wubbels, T. (2018) Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal Education, 48 (1), 103-122. Martinelli, V., & Raykov, M. (2021). Evaluation of the Georgia Elementary School Climate Survey for elementary school children. International Journal of Emotional Education, 13(2), 59-79. Pujolàs, P. (2008). 9 ideas clave. Aprendizaje cooperativo. Graó. Riera, G., Segués, M.T., & Lago, J. R. (2022). Cooperative Learning as an Instrument for Inclusion: Theoretical References and Context. In J. Collet, M. Naranjo, & J. Soldevila-Pérez (Eds.) Global Inclusive Education. Lessons from Spain. (pp. 33-46). Springer. Slavin, R. E. (2012). Classroom applications of cooperative learning. In S. Graham (Ed.), APA handbook of educational psychology (pp. 1–30). American Psychological Association. Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools, education 3–13. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 5–14.